The Federal Firearms Act of '33 was a repugnant "override" of our RKBA's.
Montana's law would partially restore & correct the Acts infringements, -- to the people of Montana.
Laws repugnant to the principles of the US Constitution can be considered null & void, and ignored at any level of government in the USA; -- the burden of constitutional proof then falls to the repugnant 'law'makers.
Any legislator believes he can pass a state law "exempting" anyone from the reach of the Constitution [federal 'law'] is too deluded to reason with.
Montana's law exempts their people from a repugnant federal law, an obviously unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
It boggles the rational mind that a supposed conservative freeper is supporting that infringement.
The FFA of 33 is currently the law of the Land and Montana can huff and puff all it wants but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are acceptable to us.
Never fear the law will be enforced nullification delusions to the contrary.
Until the Court has ruled any law unconstitutional it is in Full effect nullification delusions to the contrary. As repugnant as the Dred Scott decision was it was still the Law of the Land.
Where have I said I supported or justified the wisdom of ANY particular law? All I have done is point out that there is NO authority outside of the federal court system which can nullify a federal law. THAT is what you object to not my view of any particular law.
As regards the RKBA I support the second amendment far more than most (Americans are not that supportive) and consider most gun control laws ridiculous and of little effect on criminals but I also understand how the Constitution works. This is why I am an NRA member, to protect that Right.
However I oppose any thinking which harkens back to discredited Constitutional theory such as Nullification.